View Full Version : Harrier OCU film
I recall once being shown a 'home movie' (8mm?) of early VSTOL attempts by pilots on the embryo Harrier Conversion course. Great entertainment! Does anyone know if this film has been put on Vimeo/YouTube or whatever?
Stuff
23rd Oct 2020, 14:02
I recall once being shown a 'home movie' (8mm?) of early VSTOL attempts by pilots on the embryo Harrier Conversion course. Great entertainment! Does anyone know if this film has been put on Vimeo/YouTube or whatever?
This is the one I remember being shown in the phase brief but since it includes a fatality I'll suggest it was more sobering than entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJtbg-RhRzw
There's another that was shown during the Air Combat phase brief which consisted of hud footage from a jet that departed shortly after a 1v1v1 Mercedes split in the ACMI range. I seem to recall being told the pilot blacked out and came to with both legs on the same side of the cockpit such was the violence of the departure. That one was truly eye watering to watch.
That's the one, thanks. The last bit was never shown - I saw it with a bunch of truckie studes on a black flag day and presumably they didn't want to upset the little flowers :-) I think the last one was the USMC guy?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/137407
ShyTorque
23rd Oct 2020, 17:27
Was this before erstwhile Harrier candidates were given some initial hovering experience in helicopters? During my time instructing on the Gazelle, Harrier Pilots got a few sorties hovering at 50 feet, using purpose laid ground markers. Not a favourite pastime of us QHIs because it meant protracted operation in the avoid curve.
Watching that film (which I was first shown around 1977, during BFTS training on the Jet Provost) reminds me of a later open day at RAF Odiham when a cocky young Harrier pilot, who had flown from the OCU for a static display, was talking to a young lad, aged about five, and his mother. The young lad, in his innocence, pointed to the “outrigger” undercarriage legs and asked the Harrier pilot when they would allow him to take off his stabilisers. The lad obviously had them on his bicycle.....so it was obvious to him that a trainee Harrier pilot must have them, too! :)
Clunk60
23rd Oct 2020, 18:42
ST
Give the viff’ing Gods a break; the same could be said of B52 and U2 Gods, as well as young kids learning to balance.
ShyTorque
23rd Oct 2020, 19:34
ST
Give the viff’ing Gods a break; the same could be said of B52 and U2 Gods, as well as young kids learning to balance.
Don't shoot the messenger!
Clunk60
23rd Oct 2020, 20:25
Fair shout ST👍🏾
tartare
23rd Oct 2020, 23:53
Remarkable there weren't more deaths - real seat of the pants stuff when it was all analogue.
Was thrust split between the main nozzles fore and aft to control pitch in hover and low speed flight, as well as the puffers in the nose and tail?
How was that done, given front nozzles were cold and back nozzles were hot?
heights good
24th Oct 2020, 05:00
That all looks terrifying!
Hats off to the early Harrier guys...
India Four Two
24th Oct 2020, 05:31
What's "PNB"?
PapaDolmio
24th Oct 2020, 06:07
What's "PNB"?
Well in railway terminology its Personal Needs Break - looking at some of those incidents there might have been a few involuntary ones.
Seriously though, that was truly horrifying and hats off to the early Harrier guys. Makes you realise how ground breaking the early Harrier was.
bowly
24th Oct 2020, 07:57
PNB
Power Nozzle Braking.
AdrianShaftsworthy
24th Oct 2020, 08:26
PNB
Power Nozzle Braking.
As I recall the ‘horror movie’ as it was known was only shown to the Harrier OCU studes after the completion of the VSTOL stage of the course. And yes, it was a sobering experience!
kenparry
24th Oct 2020, 09:27
For the early Harrier conversions, not only was there no T2, but there was also no simulator. No wonder there was too much excitement. I think Hawker sold the view that there was only one more lever than on the Hunter, for nozzle angle, and the conversion would be a doddle. That may, in part, account for the late arrival of the sim and the two-seater.
ShyTorque
24th Oct 2020, 09:50
As I recall the ‘horror movie’ as it was known was only shown to the Harrier OCU studes after the completion of the VSTOL stage of the course. And yes, it was a sobering experience!
But they showed it to students at BFTS....
For the early Harrier conversions, not only was there no T2, but there was also no simulator. No wonder there was too much excitement. I think Hawker sold the view that there was only one more lever than on the Hunter, for nozzle angle, and the conversion would be a doddle. That may, in part, account for the late arrival of the sim and the two-seater.
We had a first generation Harrier pilot on our squadron.
Superb bloke, great pilot, still with us.
Though exceedingly modest, he was happy to answer any direct questions.
His description (IIRC) was that he, effectively, did two courses:
One was with the nozzles left aft and was flown conventionally, like the Hunter he had come from, with due regard given to the differing undercarriage configuration.
The "other" course was hovering.
The fast jet course subsequently involved reducing speed to land, the hovering course later involved increasing speed to take-off.
Mould the two together and it's all sorted!
I hope my recall is about right and pays suitable respect to these exceptional people - it was a privilege to be in their orbit.
lsh
charliegolf
24th Oct 2020, 10:09
Name and laud, Si. I recall another on 230 who is sadly not with us any longer.
CG
Name and laud, Si. I recall another on 230 who is sadly not with us any longer.
CG
"NW".
lsh
charliegolf
24th Oct 2020, 10:59
I thought he had departed the fix? He certainly is/was everything you say about him. Never mentioned Harriers. Unless you nagged him! When you did, you got the clearest explanation you could want.
CG
Easy Street
24th Oct 2020, 11:08
Was thrust split between the main nozzles fore and aft to control pitch in hover and low speed flight, as well as the puffers in the nose and tail?
How was that done, given front nozzles were cold and back nozzles were hot?
No, the thrust split between the front and rear nozzles couldn’t be adjusted so all jetborne pitch control was on the puffers. The rear nozzles generated more thrust due to their higher exhaust velocity; this was dealt with by positioning the rear nozzles slightly closer behind the CofG than the front nozzles were in front of it so the moment arms balanced.
Differential nozzle control for roll and pitch was proposed at one point by a certain John Farley, as he recounts among other fascinating insights from page 120 onwards at this link (https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-35A-Seminar-the-RAF-Harrier-Story.pdf). Most interestingly in the context of this thread, he talks about the perceived ‘heresy’ of his aim to simplify the STOVL control system and the scepticism he faced both from the Hawker design office and from pilots who considered mastery of the nozzle control lever to be a marker of their elite status. He says the advantage of the VAAC testbed being a 2-seater was that test pilots with no Harrier background could fly and assess the control system with no such prejudice. Brilliant engineering that played a large part in establishing the UK’s early privileges in the JSF programme - and here we are in 2020 with F-35B STOVL such a walk in the park that no 2-seater is needed.
Nige321
24th Oct 2020, 12:57
No, the thrust split between the front and rear nozzles couldn’t be adjusted so all jetborne pitch control was on the puffers. The rear nozzles generated more thrust due to their higher exhaust velocity; this was dealt with by positioning the rear nozzles slightly closer behind the CofG than the front nozzles were in front of it so the moment arms balanced.
Differential nozzle control for roll and pitch was proposed at one point by a certain John Farley, as he recounts among other fascinating insights from page 120 onwards at this link (https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-35A-Seminar-the-RAF-Harrier-Story.pdf). Most interestingly in the context of this thread, he talks about the perceived ‘heresy’ of his aim to simplify the STOVL control system and the scepticism he faced both from the Hawker design office and from pilots who considered mastery of the nozzle control lever to be a marker of their elite status. He says the advantage of the VAAC testbed being a 2-seater was that test pilots with no Harrier background could fly and assess the control system with no such prejudice. Brilliant engineering that played a large part in establishing the UK’s early privileges in the JSF programme - and here we are in 2020 with F-35B STOVL such a walk in the park that no 2-seater is needed.
Your link is broken...
spekesoftly
24th Oct 2020, 13:05
The link works for me, but the pdf file takes a short while to load.
Nige321
24th Oct 2020, 13:24
The link works for me, but the pdf file takes a short while to load.
Yes, disregard last, it dumps a pdf in the downloads...!
I thought he had departed the fix? He certainly is/was everything you say about him. Never mentioned Harriers. Unless you nagged him! When you did, you got the clearest explanation you could want.
CG
Pleased to say he checked in on facebook for his birthday a couple of days back!
The virtues of a glass of red!
So many stories of flying with him.............all good!
lsh
:E
charliegolf
24th Oct 2020, 15:08
Pleased to say he checked in on facebook for his birthday a couple of days back!
The virtues of a glass of red!
So many stories of flying with him.............all good!
lsh
:E
Excellent news!
CG